826
YouTube and Reddit are sued for allegedly enabling the racist mass shooting in Buffalo that left 10 dead (fortune.com)
submitted 3 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
229 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

YouTube and Reddit are sued for allegedly enabling the racist mass shooting in Buffalo that left 10 dead::The complementary lawsuits claim that the massacre in 2022 was made possible by tech giants, a local gun shop, and the gunman’s parents.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 85 points 3 years ago (6 children)

It's bizarre looking at this from the outside and seeing Americans trying to blame everything but the availablity of guns for shootings happening.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 31 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Many Americans will sacrifice a lot for their guns. Including school children and the ability to live in a safe society.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    Well, even Americans without guns are much more violent than people in other first-world countries. Our non-gun homicide rate is higher than the total homicide rate in (for example) France or Germany.

    There's an interesting discussion of the statistics here.

    So my interpretation is that gun control is likely to reduce the murder rate, but the change will not be nearly as dramatic as many gun-control supporters seem to expect. Guns aren't most of the problem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago

    Means≠motivation. Having the capacity to do something doesn't drive one to do so.

    I'm not deeply researched on this case but from what I know I'd imagine that poor solication combined with being accepted into a group who'd espouse those kind of views contributed to their actions. Not to say that any of those websites did anything particularly to drive their actions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    bUt iT's mUh rIgHt tO kEeP aNd cArRy gUnS

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Pity the mass shooting victims didn't have the right to live their lives without being gunned down by a psycopath.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    They do have that right actually, which is why we punish those who take those rights away. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean people can't break the laws

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    Really? The pro-gun community doesn't seem to think so. Without fail, they demand the right for people to legally own firearms despite a long history of red flags, in direct opposition to people's right to life and liberty.

    70% of mass shooters are legal gun owners, with most of the remaining being people who took a family members legally owned (and legally poorly secured) firearm.

    Pro-gun groups spend millions ensuring this doesn't change. Where is their punishment? They have record profits and convenient access to a hobby at the clear expense of people's right to life.

    And I know the bleated response; an immediate othering with "but those are law-abiding gun owners, you can't punish them".

    But it's bullshit. Most mass shooters fit the definition of "law abiding gun owner" right up to the minute they start firing into crowds. If a group is responsible for nearly three quarters of domestic terrorists and is unwilling or unable to lower that figure, society has a duty to put a stop to it.

    It's also disingenuous to claim responsibility for an act starts and ends with the murderer. We're not blind, we can see the people who continue to enable gun violence.

    Where do illegal firearms come from? Legal gun owners who leave handguns in their gloveboxes. Who blocks expanded checks and red flag laws that would have prevented mass shooters from buying semi-automatic weapons on a whim? Republican politicians who take millions from the gun-lobby. Who supports Republicans and the gun-lobby for exactly that reason? The pro-gun community.

    And surprise surprise, it's the same groups that routinely strips other people of their rights without a glimmer of guilt or self awareness.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    Yes really, I'm part of that pro gun community, I own some myself. In the US, we have certain rights that are in our constitution, like the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, a trial by jury, and along with all those is the right to bear arms. It was so important to early America it's the second amendment, right behind free speech.

    Just having a gun, or any item that is also a weapon really, doesn't oppose the right to live. Both exist, it's illegal to kill someone with your fists, a knife, a bat, or a gun, it doesn't matter what tool is used.

    Most mass shooters fit the definition of "law abiding gun owner" right up to the minute they start firing into crowds.

    So they aren't law abiding? Glad we can agree on that. Yes it's legal to carry a gun around as long as you don't go shooting random people with it, what's the point? I carry a pocket knife everywhere I go, that's also legal also as long as I don't go stabbing people.

    Who blocks expanded checks and red flag laws that would have prevented mass shooters from buying semi-automatic weapons on a whim

    So about red flag laws. Should red flags prevent the ability to practice a right? I'm not mentioning any specific right because constitutionally they all have the same protections. If it's illegal to use two flags to prevent free speech, it's illegal to use it for any other right, that's how rights work.

    The people wanting to single out one right are destroying the integrity of the most important document in US history. There are correct ways to do it, but they aren't being done, instead they are trying to do things unconstitutionally. Removing a right is hard, and requires agreement, and there isn't enough support to do it so the left resorts to unconstitutional methods and the right fights to stop it.

    And surprise surprise, it's the same groups that routinely strips other people of their rights without a glimmer of guilt or self awareness.

    I'm also against the recent movements to remove stuff like the right to abortion, but I was honestly shocked to see how weak the argument that made abortion a "right" was. Did you know how the original Roe V Wade decision was made?

    It starts with the 14th amendment, known as the amendment that gave citizenship to anyone born in the USA, and providing them equal protection under the law. There is one line in the 14th amendment that reads "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law". The supreme court decided that one little phrase gives us the implied right of privacy. From that right to privacy, they determined that means we also have the right to abortion, but only some abortion, no late term abortion.

    So not surprising it was a very controversial decision that many saw as the right result in the wrong way. I'm honestly surprised it lasted 50 years.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -13 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    Man, if the only thing that's preventing a country's populace from murdering each other is restricted access to weapons, then that country is a failed society.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Yeah, let’s not regulate guns at all, that’s a swell idea. Really worked out well so far.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Let’s make them illegal, like drugs, because that works great.

    The demand for guns in the US is high; if you don’t think this would become a lucrative black market you’re foolish.

    The solution is more involved than just “regulate X”. Something is deeply fucked that isn’t going to be simply solved with a law, and could make things worse despite great intentions, just like prohibition did.

    If the demand isn’t addressed, the problem will still exist. Same as prostitution and drugs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago

    Let’s make them illegal, like drugs, because that works great.

    So what's the black market for hand grenades and land mines like?

    Practically non-existent because it turns out controlling weapon manufacturing is much easier than controlling drug manufacturing and you can properly scrutinise people's access to them without a death cult getting outraged.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    It's almost like an in-between option for both drugs and guns needs to be considered.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    I’d still contend the issue is demand, and that is the root issue. Other solutions are treating the symptom, not the cause.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    The demand isn't so much the problem in an in between option, fair regulation and access requirements along with tracking (in the case of guns moreso) would help tremendously.

    Definitely though the underlying cause of the desire/need is a separate discussion. Recreational drugs/guns aren't a complete negative imo, some people just like to experience a different mindset/state or shoot guns, but those that are mentally ill should be able to get help instead.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    I don’t disagree necessarily, I just see it this way.

    There’s a drug problem: why are people turning to drugs for escapism? It indicates an underlying issue with society and/or our relationship with drugs.

    Along the same lines, why are we so hostile towards one another? Reducing the number of guns would reduce the number of people shot, but it wouldn’t address the hostility.

    It’s just more complicated than “regulate X” no matter how good or common sense those regulations are.

    My concern is that people only pursue the regulations, don’t address the social issue (much harder), and we end up with what prohibition created - a more robust black market.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago

    There will always be murders. Humans are irrational creatures. Banning firearms makes murder attempts less likely to succeed, and mass murders significantly harder to plan, execute, and achieve actual mortality with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago

    I mean, I'm sure there are lots of other socioeconomic reasons, but it feels like you can solve this big one a lot quicker and easier than trying to solve all the abstract issues that covers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent